VIJAY KUMAR CHHATTANI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

TAXC/203/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Kumar Chhattani, the appellant, who challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) due to a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the appellant's lack of active use of the email account where the ITAT's order was communicated. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision that advocated for a justice-oriented and liberal approach in such matters, condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the ITAT for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746788 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; ITAT
• Section: 246A; 260A

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:11780-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 203 of 2024 Vijay Kumar Chhattani, SSD AGRO Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Chhattisgarh, 493114, PAN - AFAPC4410R ... Appellant versus Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. For Respondent :- Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board [10-03-2025] Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for hearing on 18.10.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay being the appeal under ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.03.12 14:18:40 +0530 2 Section 246A of the Income Tax Act by holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of dealy of 161 days by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?” 2. The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short CIT(A)] against the assessment order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure A- 3) of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as to A.O.). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by its order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure A-5) which was again challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) and the ITAT dismissed the appellant’s appeal i.e. ITA No.120/RPR/2024 by impugned order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that no substantial clarification was provided to support the dealy of 161 days in filing the appeal. It is the order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. 3. Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, would submit that learned ITAT while passing the impugned order has relied upn the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The Income-Tax Officer, 3 Ward-2, Ambikapur 1 which has already been set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 31.01.20252 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the delay be condoned. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha v. ITO 3 . 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 6. Admittedly, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the communication of the order was made on an e-mail of which the appellant was not an active user and even the authorized representative of the assessee did not amend the e-mail id on which the order was to be communicated and, therefore, the order could not be 1 Tax Case No.86 of 2024, decided on 12.04.2024. 2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 3 Tax Case No.225 of 2024, decided on 09.12.2024. 4 communicated and as soon as the appellant came to know about the order, the appeal was preferred. 7. The Supreme Court vide its Order dated 31.01.2025 passed in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal (supra) while setting aside the order of this Court rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, has held that the High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay. 8. In view of above and also for the reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact that though the application of the appellant was supported by the affidavit, but the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and, as such, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the apeal remained uncontroverted, the delay of 161 days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of 5,000/- by the appellant to the ₹ High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 5 9. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein- above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that failure to deposit amount of cost by the appellant within the stipulated time shall lead to automatic dissolution of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ankit "